BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:22 PM

Akenaton,
Try telling the millions of straight AIDS victims in Africa that AIDS is a gay disease. As I understand it, many of them would be insulted to the point of violence at the suggestion that they are homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Akenaton,
Go write a novel, since you're so good at making up stories about people. Your statements bear no relationship to truth, logic, or common sense. If you can find any posts I have made that supports the bullshit you're spreading around, please share. If not, please explain why you think it's OK to make libelous statements. Incidentally, telling lies about people is not a good way to act if you're also trying to pretend that you are on high moral ground.

As for me calling you a bigot, I see you denying civil rights to a whole class of people. That's being a bigot in my book. If you're a friend to gays, I hope they never have any enemies!

Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay folks in SF is making stupid statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:53 PM

How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs?

Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives!

Yes, that IS sick!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:39 PM

One of the most important points to come out in this thread has been virtually ignored.
It concerns the group of homosexuals from the San Fransisco area, who wish Aids in America to be regarded as a disease mainly affecting homosexuals,in their words, they want to "own" AIDS.

These brave people are accused by "activists" like Peekstock(I refuse to bracket you with this person Ebbie) of encouraging homophobia.....but only one thing matters to these people, they want to stop this horrific disease from killing thousands of their brethern and from their point of view, denial of the truth is adding to the deaths. Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS.

People like Peekstock and "liberal" opinion have another agenda, they don't really care how many homosexuals die from the disease by being simply allowed to live with it and die with it.
What is important to these people, is the "normalisation" of homosexuality in every area of life. The current concentration on "human" rights is a disgusting con being perpetrated on the very people these "activists" are supposed to represent,They deny the link that some homosexuals are imploring society to recognise, it is an exercise in cynicism, like most "activists", they are more interested in their ego than their cause. Some use the issue as a badge of their "liberal" credentials and denying the link as it may impede the drive for normalisation, again condemning more young men to an early death in the furtherance of a political "ideal".

Neither GfS or I are "bigots" we do not hate homosexuals....we hate premature death, whereas many on the other side of the fence seem prepared to leave those whom they supposedly care for to fend for themselves, against one of the most savage diseases ever to inflict mankind.

Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me....there are only a handful here that I have come to respect, most of them have different views from myself on various issues but these differences are insignificant when I know them to be sincere and decent people.

I have no respect for those who take social and sexual politics before the premature deaths of our brothers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:24 PM

And John P writes:
"Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?"
And John P answers his own question:
"Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?"

GfS points out: Now, was that very 'moral' of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:00 PM

we believe in the right to believe in morality

GfS, I can't believe you pulled out this old chestnut. "I want my morality to extend to everyone, so I will force them all to live according to my morality, and I'll claim to be discriminated against if I don't get to tell everyone else how to live their lives." If you don't want to be gay, don't be gay. If you don't want to catch AIDS, don't have sex. It really isn't complicated. Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Why don't you just go live in Saudi Arabia? You'd probably like it there. In the USA, thankfully, we believe in freedom.

Please, please, please answer the question:

Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Little Hawk, you object to my tone, but you don't actually respond to what I said.

What is your definition of bigot?

In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

You can disparage my tone all you want -- I am certainly sick of yours on this topic -- but you should also explain yourself better than by saying "I know they aren't bigots". You sound a bit like George Bush looking into Putin's eyes and "knowing" the man.

Yes, I'm asking you to take a stand on this issue. Don's story from the 60s fits you like a glove. You sound like one of those who stood back and let McCarthy run wild in the 50s.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:10 AM

(CBS/AP) In choosing sides over the legality of gay marriage, two of the nation's top lawyers are saying, "I do."

Opposing attorneys in the 2000 election fight for Florida - David Boies, who represented Al Gore, and Ted Olson, George Bush's lawyer and later the U.S. Solicitor General - are teaming up to ask a federal court to throw out California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The two filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a federal question," he said. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

And they may go up against Ken Starr, the former prosecutor who almost got President Clinton removed from office over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Starr successfully argued before the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8.

Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of the film "Milk" about the late gay activist Harvey Milk, said the case would seek to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage not just in California, "but sea to sea."

"Like so many civil right battles before the gay and lesbian movement, it's only clear we can win our full and complete right [in federal court]," Black said on CBS' The Early Show. "There will always be states and counties that will have to be pulled to full equality."

Black said part of the reason opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in passing Proposition 8 last year was that activists did not look to history and reach out to those outside the gay community.

"Harvey Milk understood we need to reach out, educate," Black said. "Thankfully, we've now identified the community that voted against us, thanks to Proposition 8. We need to reach out to them, educate them and tell our personal stories."

In their decision, the Justices emphasized the legal issue before them was not same-sex marriage (which they voted last year to legalize) but rather the right of California voters to change the state's constitution. .."(CBS)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:06 AM

"There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric."
You are probably right on this one...as to your other part of your post about 'sticking' words, and re-acting to them...(cups hands around mouth, and yells across the canyon).."Did you hear that, Don??"

Don:"If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it."

What's a bigot?.O-O-O-h-h, one of those people who accuse myself and Ake of being one....because of our beliefs??...Oh, I got it now!

Hey Ake, I just figured out that we are 'bigots' because we believe in the right to believe in morality, and are not ashamed of it...even though we have compassion and understanding to the people who we are accused of being 'bigots' toward.....and those accusing us of it, are claiming NOT to be those people!
They have such a way with words!
I'll explain my position in another post, just why I see it the way I do....then you can agree, or disagree, and decide to call me one too, ok?
Until then, I found this song, performed by a close friend of the family. He died last year, though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7YjCdNT27c&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 08:41 PM

If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it.

Don't act like one.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:38 PM

GfS:

You are sticking words into my posts and then refuting them, which is terribly clever, if somewhat onanistic of you.

The narrow majority you speak of was not based on clear reflection, any more than your and Ake's reactions are--they were bought with fear and false advertising that had no solid connection to the central issue. The votes were cast from superstition.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the process was sufficient to change the state's constitution, but has not made any decision on the merit of the law itself, acceding, as you have, to the will of numbers.

There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric. The national Constitution has a thing or two to say about inquality under the law. Pushbuttons or no pushbuttons. Your reactive field of loathing is fated to be over-ridden by a more reasonable voice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:23 PM

No, Little Hawk, these two are beyond hope and I'm not trying to convince them. I know they will never come around. Nothing will change their minds.

This phenomenon, too, I have encountered before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:17 PM

By the way, Little Hawk, I'm quite familiar with Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame and I think you should be directed GfS and Ake to it.

Does the contempt displayed by that barrage of YouTube links GfS posted—along with his (or her) accompanying remarks—not to mention the abuse and insults he/she and Ake have thrown at Amos, myself, and others who don't share their viewpoint—look like "good faith" to you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:09 PM

From: Don Firth
"GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.
You're toast!"

Toast??..You're not trying to butter me up, are you?

From: Amos
"Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.
Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals".....OH!, you mean a meaningless bunch of people called the majority electorate??..Those stupid, know nothings!!!..Shit, they even elected your guy too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM

What I am taking people to task for, Don, is NOT their opinion, but their penchant for making personal attacks on other people who have a different opinion and defining them as "perverts", "bigots", "homophobes", and bad people.

As Mr Obama so eloquently pointed out in his speech at Notre Dame, that is what we must not do if we wish to have any kind of productive debates over divisive issues.

You know my opinion on this issue. I have no objection at all to gay couples getting legally married.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Well, maybe not, Little Hawk, but the way you've been sort of sarcastically trying to take people with strong opinions to task certainly sounds familiar.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:42 PM

As usual, Don Firth, you're talking about someone else, but not me. Whoever it is you're talking about, I was just as fed up with those dippy types back then as you seem to be now, I still don't like them, and not surprisingly! I do not resemble them.

You completely fail to understand what I am saying in this thread or where I am coming from or what my concerns are. You sound to me like a blind man attempting to describe a rainbow.

Watch the Obama speech at Notre Dame again and pay close attention to what he says.

****

Ake, Amos is so very good at psychobabble himself that he resents it when he thinks someone else like me is horning in on his turf. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:34 PM

"The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork....." ake

I can't let that statement go by without clarification. For the record, I am another "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" (whatever that is). I agree with John Peekstock. He may be blunter than I but I assure you that does not denote a difference in our core beliefs.

Also for the record: Whether ake and/or GfS are bigots I can't say with finality. For all I know they are yanking chains with all their might. I will say, however, that the terminology and code words they have chosen to employ are the same ones used by bigots.

They remind me of a young (white) man who, a few years back in Juneau, shaved his head, donned a perpetually grim look on his face and walked around wearing camo clothing. He then complained to a friend of mine that people were putting a label on him, that - for no reason! -they treated him as though he were a white-supremicist skinhead.

He evidently didn't recognize that he had chosen the uniform, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:02 PM

GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.

You're toast!

####

And Little Hawk—

Back in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement was at it's peak and the anti-Vietnam war was building, I knew people who were into magic mushrooms, read Carlos Castaneda, got involved with Eastern religions, hung out at their local Vedanta center, dinked around with the I Ching, "tuned in, turned on, and dropped out," although not always with drugs. While other people were getting involved in the Civil Rights movement and were protesting the war, marching, demonstrating, writing or talking to their political representatives and were generally indicating their level of concern, catching the attention of our political leaders and basically forcing them to do something about these matters, there were others who would not sully their pristine souls with such earthly matters, looking askance, and "tut-tutting" and "tsk-tsking."

When such struggles for human rights manifested themselves in their vicinities, they would retract their landing gear into the lotus position and rise above it all, sometimes levitating to really impressive altitudes, to the point of pissing off the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board by cluttering up the flight control radar. But—they were above it all.

Aloof. Uninvolved. Neutral. Smug. And feeling quite superior, but adamantly denying that they felt that way because that would be inconsistent with the purity of their souls.

If they ever did tune in on the discussions of world affairs to the point where they actually did get a grasp of what was really going on, they would be in dire danger of abandoning their neutrality and forming an opinion. They frequently grow so upset when they found themselves in danger of getting involved in the real world, they lost their powers of levitation and wound up with their feet all braided around their knees, head down in a potted plant.

Some became so uninvolved that they shaved their heads, donned saffron robes, and became "hairless Krishnas," bugging people in airports for small change. This, while many genuine Buddhists who wore those saffron robes were so concerned with the plight of their fellow humans that they registered their protest, not through violence to others, but by self-immolation.

No, Little Hawk. I've heard your kind of kibitzing many times before. It's easily recognized for what it is. It's nice and safe up there near the ceiling as you look down on those who are not afraid to express their viewpoint and then defend it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:39 PM

Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.

Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals.

Reactionary means responding to a stimulus, without inspection, on a somewhat blind response basis rather than by differentiating and discriminating.

The push-button reaction is based on fear. For example, believing that there is something dangerous about allowing adult individuals to legally marry, because they belong to a different life-style set than oneself. There is no danger inherent in such a freedom.

There is nothing unhealthy about legally honoring individuals who wish to make a permanent commitment to each other. Believing that the act of marriage is the "same" as any health vectors involved in sexual practices in a large unmarried population is a clear example of blind associations, reacting to categories instead of the actual elements being discussed. This "categorical association" as a basis for what one feels "must happen" or "must not happen" is just reaction, not analysis.

As to what line of thought I hold, I will thank you not to tuck it into your neat little boxes. I have explained myself completely clearly to you over and over again, and you persist in ignoring my insistence that things which are different be differentiated.

If that is your actual choice, then go on your way--knowing you have chosen to think automatically instead of consciously, because you could not be arsed to look clearly at what you saw.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:18 PM

Amos... what the hell is "mass reactionary thinking", you have the audacity to accuse Little Hawk of "psychobabble", yet come out with nonesense like that.
For over thirty years, the popular media and the entertainment industry have busily promoted the homosexual lifestyle to the extent that the "mass" of the population are unable to question the health statistics or the "rights" of other sections of society without being branded bigots...or worse

Any reactionary thinking has come from groups who promote what is clearly a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle and coerse the mass of the population into believing that it is safe and healthy.

Clearly you hold to the "liberal" view that any line of thought which you disagree with is "reactionary"

The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork.....allbeit late in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Gust from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:11 PM

Winona?..ride her?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:02 PM

I'm honored, but I have already given my heart to Winona. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:48 PM

Little Hawk, I am so touched by that eulogy that I feel a proposal coming on......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:44 PM

"The California voters...have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax"

Sorry, Joe, wrong. The legislature has done that almost by itself. As a life long (emphasis long) Californian, I have seen the state spending increase sales taxes from 3% to, now, nearly 10%, and that doesn"t count special taxes on fuel, or so called sin taxes that have also ballooned, making the actual sales tax rate much higher.

The legislature, and the special interest groups...prison guards, teachers' unions foremost among them want more an yet more...good times or bad. One would have thought that the taxpayer revolt culminating in the passage of Prop. 13 would have made these groups realize that programs and spending needed to be both prioritized, and kept at reasonable rates.

The legislature blew off Arnold when he came into office, and likewise the voters, when he had subsequently gone to them, by rejecting his program...all of which was opposed by the groups I mentioned.

There are many and complex reasons aside from the above that the state is in trouble...the least problem is the common voter like you or me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:33 PM

Thank You, Little Hawk,..just for that.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkkM78lcjDU&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:17 PM

John P, I already have a long enough acquaintance of both Akenaton and GfS, based on their many, many postings both here and on a great many other threads, a long enough acquaintance to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are neither evil nor bad people...nor are they bigots. It's that simple.

You imagine them as being someone they are not.

Now, there are people out there who definitely fit your definition of "bigots"...people who truly hate gays and wish to do them harm.

Akenaton and GfS are not among those people. We've only had one such person post on this entire thread that I recall...they posted once as a supposed "Guest"...and it was either a troll trying to stir up trouble here or it was some Mudcat member on your favored side of the argument here who was trying to be an "agent provocateur" to embarrass the people on the other side of the argument (stir up trouble, in other words). Members also act as trolls when they do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:08 PM

Hear, hear, Joe. The simplicity of it is that it not only does not seem fair, it is unfair in fact.

The core of the problem, back when, was a conflation between religiously-imposed moral strictures and legal standards. ONe of the reason we HAVE a constitution is to prevent this kihnd of bleed-through from tainting the circus of law with the stench of bottomless reactions and opinions based on moralization. Or at least dampen the infiltration! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:01 PM

I can't say I have any faith in the California government-by-referendum process, Amos. The California voters have enacted a lot of bad law over the years, and they have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax.
If they're going to require a 2/3 vote for anything, it ought to be required for things like restricting the rights of minorities. Outlawing gay marriage by a mere majority, just doesn't seem fair to me.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:46 PM

My feelings about this issue are well documented in this thread.

The California Supreme Court, however, was not passing judgement on the issueof same-sex marriage, but on the qualification of the process of modifying the State constitution by means of a popular referendum. They did not, apparently, address the issue of whether the act itself was counter-constitutional, merely the porocess of enacting it.

I believe this is a flawed method, because it allows no dampening effect against mass reactionary thinking, one of the most severe dangers to a constitutional democracy. The contrast between mass reactionary thought and the ideal model of educated and informed citizens debating and then voting is dramatically illustrated here, as it was in the McCarthy era, and as it has been in many other moments in recent history. California's referendum system has a certain beauty to it, but it needs to be said that it does enable rash thrusts to be embodied in law. It could be argued the the same thinking that laid down Proposition 13 is a contributing vector to the current near-bankruptcy of the State budget, in that it slashed a revenue stream without responsibility for meeting budgetary commitments.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:28 PM

Well, it's just been announced that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, with a 6-1 majority. The one vote to overturn the initiative was from the sole Democrat on the court. You can see more details here (LA Times).

The court upheld the validity of gay marriages performed last year, but outlawed future gay marriage. I think getting Prop 8 overturned was a long shot, but it seems to me that this sort of bullying by the majority doesn't follow our principles of government. I thought our constitution was set up to protect the rights of minorities.

But the people have spoken with a 52% majority, and the Court has spoken with a 6-1. I guess people feel more comfortable controlling what gay people do, but I wonder what it is that they're afraid of. One guy drove to San Francisco from Sacramento today so he could show off a sign that says "Gay = Pervert." Whey do people even care whether gay people get married?



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

Little Hawk:
And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Well, when the people on the other side of the debate really are evil and bad people, it's pretty hard not to notice that and call attention to it. These people believe in denying basic rights to a class of people (bigots), and think they have a right to legislate what other people do in bed (perverts). Do you deny this?

Akenaton is very angry because I started talking about his sexuality, even though every statement he's made on this subject is talking about someone else's sexuality. He calls me an abuser, while he is busily abusing a whole class of people. Do you not understand that?

If they were white supremacists who were going on about how blacks shouldn't be enjoying any "special" rights, would you think we should be careful about saying what we think of their moral stature?

Little Hawk, your silence is golden to the bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

There is a sentiment I can agree with. In fact I just performed that number--minus the shadows--at a wedding last month, at the bride's request.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:15 AM

I'd hate to disappoint!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlbQPmXg08

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:12 AM

The operational phrase was "red herrings". The place is crawling with them. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:09 AM

And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Ping!

(I now await the "pong!" which should naturally be coming back across the net any time soon...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:05 AM

It was meat for humor~

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:34 AM

There are lots of ways to destroy a communication channel; one is to pepper it with vitriol; another is to glut it with too much traffic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:57 AM

Well, I was in the studio, working on some stuff, couldn't get 'right back' to ya'...but I think this covers it!!
IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME, BUT I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT, AND IS ENLIGHTENING!!!
hAVE FUN!!--GfS

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM
"To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""
?
Don T."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sPDV-ERLIs   Don T

From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM
"My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site."
...and the perfect musical note, just for you...(reminds me of you)....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

"From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM.
"And you, SIR OR MADAM as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really REVEALED yourself!......."

Huh? Did you proof read that?? If I 'really revealed" myself, why can't you make up your mind???? (sir OR madam)......so a song for you...and its all about you, too!....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5BnCEPr7cU   and...

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Shit!..You're older than I thought!!

"Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well......"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug6EISLttG4

"..that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States......"...do you mean?....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU&NR=1

    "As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big
foreheads?"

Well, being as you were so concerned about "differences in the hypothalamus"..Where is your crusade for those who really have big ones?? Why can't they play Pro football???? You have two homosexuals 'playing' married, don't you?? You seem a little selective here! (actually, I've done a benefit that autistic people had their bills paid..what did you do?) ..and besides THEY, UNLIKE HOMOSEXUALS, REALLY ARE THAT WAY FROM BIRTH...DUMMY!......so, here's another song for you......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM
"GfS:
I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though."

What?...IGNORED????...LIKE DODGE, RIGHT??
Jeez!..Those liberal double talkers...no wonder this guy loves Obama!!

From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM
"In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.
Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?"

You mean ignored??..you know, like Mrs. Amos Obama?..Here, here's a song for you, being as your married,and so steadfastly obsessed with the homosexual issue, perhaps this explains your dilemma....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMXnk16kiE    ...AND/OR...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_zyy51iOY4&feature=PlayList&p=FAA35986A785C3DD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45

From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM
"SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!
Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6rAD3Tcq4

From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM
"Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)"
Here's a good one!!...(too good!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIJtKxdRQzY

From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM
"And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPv9AtZ2zE

From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM
"Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8qMUuQTdc&feature=related

And to JOE OFFER...FOR WHAT HE MUST HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWzbZGk3eA&feature=related

Signing off!....    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4heQyu1bijs

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM

Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:19 PM

Does he who posts last "win" then...? ;-) Remember, I once started a thread devoted to such a premise, merely for laughs, and after a vast number of posts Bearded Bruce decided to post his sonnets on it endlessly until finally everyone else around here just gave up and left him to it, so I guess he "won". (?)

But what is the prize for such a victory? And is it worth the time consumed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM

And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire.

prejudice   def.   Suffering from premature evaluation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM

Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM

""To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""

?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:35 PM

Come on boys....you're starting to talk to yourselves.
Don't you realise that the arguments have all been made, bad, good, for, against,leave it to the Mudcatters of the future to pass judgement. To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:51 PM

Too true, Don, too true. (grinning back atcha in a good-humoured fashion...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:39 PM

Congratulations, Little Hawk. I rejoice in your happiness.

It's a boon and a blessing to know what's really important in this life, isn't it?

Don Firth (smiling beatifically)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM

SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!

Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:34 PM

I was away for a bit....busy....but I see that you DID reach 1300 posts in my absence. Bravo!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew you could do it.

I have won my bet and am now the proud owner of a gilded birdbath that rests upon a marble likeness of Winona Ryder. Life is good. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM

In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.

Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?

Hmm?

Don Firth